Replies

You seem to believe that you have some sort of claim on these resources, and that you, or a whole bunch of people like you armed with a government, have the right to demand that other people's money be employed to benefit you.

Although not addressed to me, I think you fail to realize that the lines on the map are not arbitrary, nor are the needs of national security, a bunch of peasants with pitchforks arbitrarily seizing private property from shareholders and propertied interests. You make a FUNDAMENTAL mistake of economic assumptions. Just as the Pharisees did when they asked Jesus whether it was proper to pay the tax to Rome. He pointedly asked them whose inscription was on the coin. 'Ceaser' they replied. He then directed that they pay Ceaser what was Ceaser's, and to God, what was God's. National security has ALWAYS, from John Adams 'Wealth of NATIONS' forward recognized that protecting the economic foundations of the NATION was a desireable and necessary objective. Globalism will end all individual rights. Property and otherwise. The Marxists will prevail if sovereignty is not taught in the schools and enforced politically.

I think you fail to realize that the lines on the map are not arbitrary

They are arbitrary in the sense that the Giant Finger of God did not come down and draw lines in the dirt, with a booming voice saying, "THIS shall be the United States of America." The boundaries are the product of accidents, wars... all kinds of things that at the time were rolls of the dice. Had Louis not felt like selling the "Purchase," had the Civil War gone differently, had Santa Anna been a little smarter or stupider than he was, the boundaries would be different. We can imagine some frontiersman living in a cabin up by the Canadian border around 1800, who has a guy ride up claiming to be a U.S. Marshal. "What's the U.S., and who says I'm in it?" It's the scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail: "Who made you king?"

All this stuff seems so obvious today, but when I was kid, there were 48 states. I saw the boundaries move myself.

We need to be real careful about that, because "sovereignty" isn't about borders. It's about a common culture. "Sovereignty" is how some people over here who think that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, keep the guys over there who think Islamic Law is the way to go, from ruining their lives.

Never mind the boundaries... if the common values slip away, the boundaries won't matter. We really, really need to do something about the multiculturalists. We didn't used to have a problem turning Brits, Italians, Poles, Chinese, Germans, Lithuanians... whoever into Americans. Two generations after they got here, they all got the part about the unalienable rights. Now we have Daughters of the American Revolution graduating from college whose only knowledge of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson is that they owned slaves. This problem is not coming to us from "overseas." It's right here inside the borders.

National security has ALWAYS, from John Adams 'Wealth of NATIONS' forward recognized that protecting the economic foundations of the NATION was a desireable and necessary objective.

No one would argue with that. But there might be huge arguments over how to achieve that. If you are privy to some special wisdom or insight on the subject, that's terrific. All the guys who think you're full of canal water believe that they are smart and right as well. We are lucky to have a democratic republic in which to sort that out amicably. It could be worse; we could have a Fidel Castro who decides what he thinks, and the rest of us would have to live with it.

Globalism will end all individual rights.

That is true by definition, for those people who have already defined "Globalism" to mean some worldwide Marxist victory. If you get far enough into that thinking, trade with Canada becomes a step on the Slippery Slope toward world communism. "Roll up the shorelines! Put troops at the borders! Watch our economy soar when 50% of the oil we use vanishes!" I've heard the rant. I know how it goes. I just don't buy it.

I could define "globalism" to mean "Global U.S. hegemony, backed by the biggest, baddest military the world has ever seen." Instead we have guys running around yelling "Globalism is coming! Globalism is coming!" as though that has to end with the communists in charge. Well, no it doesn't. The Ayatollahs want it to end with Mohammad in charge... do you worry about that? I don't. I worry more about Americans turning into Marxists themselves than I worry about Fidel Castro or Kim Jong Il winning some global economic struggle.